# C_2007247EN.01004202.xml

| 20.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/42 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 27 July 2007 — Boudova and Others v Commission

(Case F-78/07)

(2007/C 247/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Stanislava Boudova (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Others (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the implied decision of the Commission of 23 September 2006, confirmed by the letter of the Director-General of the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (OPOCE), to reject the applicants' application of 23 May 2006, the purpose of which was:
—
the revision of their classification in grade B*3 by the decision to recruit them as probationary officials and their reclassification in grade B*6 as at the time at which that decision took effect; —
the reconstitution on that basis of their careers between the date when they took up their duties as probationary officials and the date of the decision to be taken; —
the payment of the difference between the remuneration to which they would have been entitled during that period if they had been classified in grade B*6 and that which they received on account of their classification in grade B*3; | — | the revision of their classification in grade B*3 by the decision to recruit them as probationary officials and their reclassification in grade B*6 as at the time at which that decision took effect; | — | the reconstitution on that basis of their careers between the date when they took up their duties as probationary officials and the date of the decision to be taken; | — | the payment of the difference between the remuneration to which they would have been entitled during that period if they had been classified in grade B*6 and that which they received on account of their classification in grade B*3; |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | the revision of their classification in grade B*3 by the decision to recruit them as probationary officials and their reclassification in grade B*6 as at the time at which that decision took effect; | | | | | | |
| — | the reconstitution on that basis of their careers between the date when they took up their duties as probationary officials and the date of the decision to be taken; | | | | | | |
| — | the payment of the difference between the remuneration to which they would have been entitled during that period if they had been classified in grade B*6 and that which they received on account of their classification in grade B*3; | | | | | | |

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs |
| - | ------------------------------------ |

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants state that they were recruited by the Commission as auxiliary staff to the posts of proofreaders within OPOCE before the entry into force, on 1 May 2004, of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities( 1 ) in view of the enlargement and of filling those posts by open competition.

After they had passed the open competitions published at grade B5/B4 before 1 May for the purpose of filling those posts, the applicants were recruited as probationary officials on the basis of reserve lists published after that date. They were classified in grade B*3 on the basis of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’).

The applicants submit that their action is admissible on account of a new substantial fact although they did not bring a complaint against the decisions laying down their classification in grade in the period laid down in the Staff Regulations for filing a complaint. That new substantial fact is the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 13 February 2006 to reclassify the temporary servants who were appointed officials, on the basis of open competitions, after 1 May 2004, in the grade in which they would have been classified if they had been recruited as officials before that date.

The applicants consider that they have been discriminated against by the reclassification of those officials of the Parliament and take the view that they should be entitled to the same treatment, inasmuch as they submit that they were really recruited as temporary servants and not as auxiliary staff. In their opinion, their contracts fall within the scope of Article 2 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS) and not of Article 3a thereof given that they had to fill posts which were temporarily vacant and not to replace officials or temporary servants who were unable for the time being to perform their duties. In the alternative, the applicants submit that, even if they had been recruited as auxiliary staff, their position would in any event have been analogous to that of temporary servants.

In support of their action, the applicants rely on one plea in law alleging infringement of Article 5(3) and (4) and Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations interpreted by reference to the principle of equal treatment. In particular, Article 5(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations should be interpreted as meaning that it is applicable to temporary servants who were appointed officials on the basis of open competitions, something which would preclude the classification in grade of that group from being fixed on the basis of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.

---

( 1 )  OJ L 124, 27.4.2004, p. 1.

---